Now that we are passing source realm's id instead of string_id in
source realm selector, it makes sense to rename the "source_realm" field
to "source_realm_id".
In the source realm selector, when we select a realm from which we want
to import the data, we pass the source realm's string_id. The problem
with this approach is that the string_id can be an empty string. This
commit makes the source_realm pass the realm's id instead of string_id.
Now, the source_realm's value will either be an integer or "" (empty
string) when we don't want to import settings from any realm.
This commit adds both frontend and backend code to invite a user as
moderator. We allow only existing owners and admins to invite a user
as a moderator.
We refactor check_has_permission_policies to check for all user roles for
each value of policy. This will help in handle a case where a guest is
allowed to do something but moderator isn't.
We need to do user_profile.refresh_from_db() in validation_func because
the realm object from user_profile is used in has_permission and we need
updated realm instance after changing the policy.
This is a follow-up commit to 9a4c58cb.
Messages sent by muted users are marked as read
as soon as they are sent (or, more accurately,
while creating the database entries itself), regardless
of type (stream/huddle/PM).
ede73ee4cd, makes it easy to
pass a list to `do_send_messages` containing user-ids for
whom the message should be marked as read.
We add the contents of this list to the set of muter IDs,
and then pass it on to `create_user_messages`.
This benefits from the caching behaviour of `get_muting_users`
and should not cause performance issues long term.
The consequence is that messages sent by muted users will
not contribute to unread counts and notifications.
This commit does not affect the unread messages
(if any) present just before muting, but only handles
subsequent messages. Old unreads will be handled in
further commits.
We keep the error message same for all cases when a user is not
allowed to invite others for all values of invite_to_realm_policy.
We raise error with different message for guest cases because it
is handled by decorators. We aim to change this behavior in future.
Explaining the details in error message isn't much important as
we do not show errors probably in API only, as we do not the show
the options itself in the frontend.
We add moderators and full members option to invite_to_realm_policy
by using COMMON_POLICY_TYPES and use can_invite_others_to_realm helper
added in previous commit. This commit only does the backend work,
frontend work will be done in separate commit.
This commit adds can_invite_others_to_realm helper which will be used in
further in next commit when invite_to_realm_policy will be modified to
support all values of COMMON_POLICY_TYPES.
It is important for this commit's correctness that
INVITE_TO_REALM_POLICY_TYPES was initialized to use the same values.
This commit replaces invite_by_admins_policy, which was a bool field,
with a new enum field invite_by_realm_policy.
Though the final goal is to add moderators and full members option
using COMMON_POLICY_TYPES, but this will be done in a separate
commit to make this easy for review.
This adds the is_user_active with the appropriate code for setting the
value correctly in the future. In the following commit a migration to
backfill the value for existing Subscriptions will be added.
To ensure correct user_profile.is_active handling also in tests, we
replace all direct .is_active mutation with calls to appropriate
functions.
Fixes#17238.
In process_new_human user, the queries were wrong, revoking all invites
sent to the email address, even in other realms than the one where the
new account just got created.
test_signup: This test was wrong, because the inviter UserProfile was
from a different realm. Such a PreregistrationUser shouldn't be
considered valid.
test_tutorial: The direct call to internal_send_private_message was
using sender's realm as the realm argument which is not valid. It
doesn't lead to any error because the codepath seems to mostly not care
about the realm arg if the sender is a cross-realm bot. From my reading
of the code I think that wrong realm arg here would break user mentions,
because it makes its way to check_message() and then to
build_message_send_dict - but overall the message gets sent without
errors. Either way, this was a bug in the test and should be fixed.
This commit migrates some of the backend tests to use assertLogs(),
instead of mock.patch() as planned in #15331.
Tweaked by tabbott to avoid tautological assertions.
There were some tests that had mock patches for logging, although no
logging was actually happening there. This commit removes such patches
in `corporate/tests/test_stripe.py`, `zerver/tests/test_cache.py`,
`zerver/tests/test_queue_worker.py`,
and `zerver/tests/test_signup.py`.
Adjustments made due to changes in Django 3.0:
(https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/3.0/releases/3.0/)
- test_signup: INTERNAL_RESET_URL_TOKEN was moved to
PasswordResetConfirmView.reset_url_token
- test_message_fetch:
"add_never_cache_headers() and never_cache() now add the private
directive to Cache-Control headers."
- "django.utils.html.escape() now uses html.escape() to escape HTML.
This converts ' to ' instead of the previous equivalent decimal
code '." - this requires adjusting the expected decimal code
in some of the string fixtures in tests.
In the case of reusing a registration link, reuse the
redirect_to_email_login_url helper. This does have the side effect of
now showing a "you've already registered" note, which did not happen
previously, but that seems probably for the best, since the user did
just click a "register" link.
Checking for `validate_email_not_already_in_realm` again (after the
form already did so), but only in the case that the form fails to
validate, means that we may be spending time pushing totally invalid
emails to the DB to check. In the case of emails containing nulls,
this can even trigger a 500 error from PostgreSQL.
Stop calling `validate_email_not_already_in_realm` in the form
validation. The form is currently only used in two places -- in
`accounts_home` and in `maybe_send_to_registration`. The latter is
only called if the address is known to not currently have an account,
so checking in there is unnecessary; and in the former case, we wish
different behaviour (the redirect) than just validation failure, which
is all the validator can do.
Fixes#17015.
Co-authored-by: Alex Vandiver <alexmv@zulip.com>
Add a `--allow-reserved-subdomain` flag which allows creation of
reserved keyword domains. This also always enforces that the domain
is not in use, which was removed in 0258d7d.
Fixes#16924.
When changing the subdomain of a realm, create a deactivated realm with
the old subdomain of the realm, and set its deactivated_redirect to the
new subdomain.
Doing this will help us to do the following:
- When a user visits the old subdomain of a realm, we can tell the user
that the realm has been moved.
- During the registration process, we can assure that the old subdomain
of the realm is not used to create a new realm.
If the subdomain is changed multiple times, the deactivated_redirect
fields of all the deactivated realms are updated to point to the new
uri.
If a user visits a realm which has been deactivated and it's
deactivated_redirect field is set, we should have a message telling the
user that the realm has moved to the deactivated_redirect url.
In 709493cd75 (Feb 2017)
I added code to render_markdown that re-fetched the
sender of the message, to detect whether the message is
a bot.
It's better to just let the ORM fetch this. The
message object should already have sender.
The diff makes it look like we are saving round trips
to the database, which is true in some cases. For
the main message-send codepath, though, we are only
saving a trip to memcached, since the middleware
will have put our sender's user object into the
cache. The test_message_send test calls internally
to check_send_stream_message, so it was actually
hitting the database in render_markdown (prior to
my change).
Before this change we were clearing the cache on
every SQL usage.
The code to do this was added in February 2017
in 6db4879f9c.
Now we clear the cache just one time, but before
the action/request under test.
Tests that want to count queries with a warm
cache now specify keep_cache_warm=True. Those
tests were particularly flawed before this change.
In general, the old code both over-counted and
under-counted queries.
It under-counted SQL usage for requests that were
able to pull some data out of a warm cache before
they did any SQL. Typically this would have bypassed
the initial query to get UserProfile, so you
will see several off-by-one fixes.
The old code over-counted SQL usage to the extent
that it's a rather extreme assumption that during
an action itself, the entries that you put into
the cache will get thrown away. And that's essentially
what the prior code simulated.
Now, it's still bad if an action keeps hitting the
cache for no reason, but it's not as bad as hitting
the database. There doesn't appear to be any evidence
of us doing something silly like fetching the same
data from the cache in a loop, but there are
opportunities to prevent second or third round
trips to the cache for the same object, if we
can re-structure the code so that the same caller
doesn't have two callees get the same data.
Note that for invites, we have some cache hits
that are due to the nature of how we serialize
data to our queue processor--we generally just
serialize ids, and then re-fetch objects when
we pop them off the queue.
During the new user creation code path, there can be no existing
active clients for the user being created, so we can skip the code to
send events to that user's clients.
The tests here reflect that we need to send fewer events, and do fewer
queries that would have been spent computing data for these..
Fixes#16503, combined with the long series of recent changes by Steve
Howell to fix super-linear behavior in this code path.
We used to send occupy/vacate events when
either the first person entered a stream
or the last person exited.
It appears that our two main apps have never
looked at these events. Instead, it's
generally the case that clients handle
events related to stream creation/deactivation
and subscribe/unsubscribe.
Note that we removed the apply_events code
related to these events. This doesn't affect
the webapp, because the webapp doesn't care
about the "streams" field in do_events_register.
There is a theoretical situation where a
third party client could be the victim of
a race where the "streams" data includes
a stream where the last subscriber has left.
I suspect in most of those situations it
will be harmless, or possibly even helpful
to the extent that they'll learn about
streams that are in a "quasi" state where
they're activated but not occupied.
We could try to patch apply_event to
detect when subscriptions get added
or removed. Or we could just make the
"streams" piece of do_events_register
not care about occupy/vacate semantics.
I favor the latter, since it might
actually be what users what, and it will
also simplify the code and improve
performance.
Tim Abbott
Siddharth Asthana
sahil839
Vishnu KS
Anders Kaseorg
Mateusz Mandera
Abhijeet Prasad Bodas
shanukun
Alex Vandiver
m-e-l-u-h-a-n
Aman Agrawal
Tushar912
Steve Howell